Friday, March 06, 2015

The Real Show....

“The collapse of the Soviet Union removed the only
constraint on Washington’s power to act unilaterally abroad…. Suddenly
the United States found itself to be the Uni-power, the ‘world’s only
superpower.’ Neoconservatives proclaimed ‘the end of history.'”
— Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury

“Don’t blame the mirror if your face is crooked.”
— Russian proverb

On February 10, 2007, Vladimir Putin delivered a speech at the 43rd
Munich Security Conference that created a rift between Washington and
Moscow that has only deepened over time. The Russian President’s
blistering hour-long critique of US foreign policy provided a rational,
point-by-point indictment of US interventions around the world and their
devastating effect on global security.

Putin probably didn’t realize
the impact his candid observations would have on the assembly in Munich
or the reaction of powerbrokers in the US who saw the presentation as a
turning point in US-Russian relations. But, the fact is, Washington’s
hostility towards Russia can be traced back to this particular incident,
a speech in which Putin publicly committed himself to a multipolar
global system, thus, repudiating the NWO pretensions of US elites.
Here’s what he said:

“I am convinced that we have reached that decisive moment when we
must seriously think about the architecture of global security. And we
must proceed by searching for a reasonable balance between the interests
of all participants in the international dialogue.”

With that one formulation, Putin rejected the United States assumed
role as the world’s only superpower and steward of global security, a
privileged position which Washington feels it earned by prevailing in
the Cold War and which entitles the US to unilaterally intervene
whenever it sees fit. Putin’s announcement ended years of bickering and
deliberation among think tank analysts as to whether Russia could be
integrated into the US-led system or not. Now they knew that Putin
would never dance to Washington’s tune.

In the early years of his presidency, it was believed that Putin
would learn to comply with western demands and accept a subordinate role
in the Washington-centric system. But it hasn’t worked out that way.
The speech in Munich merely underscored what many US hawks and Cold
Warriors had been saying from the beginning, that Putin would not
relinquish Russian sovereignty without a fight. The declaration
challenging US aspirations to rule the world, left no doubt that Putin
was going to be a problem that had to be dealt with by any means
necessary including harsh economic sanctions, a State Department-led
coup in neighboring Ukraine, a conspiracy to crash oil prices, a
speculative attack of the ruble, a proxy war in the Donbass using
neo-Nazis as the empire’s shock troops, and myriad false flag operations
used to discredit Putin personally while driving a wedge between Moscow
and its primary business partners in Europe. Now the Pentagon is
planning to send 600 paratroopers to Ukraine ostensibly to “train the
Ukrainian National Guard”, a serious escalation that violates the spirit
of Minsk 2 and which calls for a proportionate response from the
Kremlin. Bottom line: The US is using all the weapons in its arsenal to
prosecute its war on Putin.

Last week’s gangland-style murder of Russian opposition leader, Boris
Nemtsov, has to be considered in terms of the larger geopolitical game
that is currently underway. While we may never know who perpetrated the
crime, we can say with certainly that the lack of evidence hasn’t
deterred the media or US politicians from using the tragedy to advance
an anti-Putin agenda aimed at destabilizing the government and
triggering regime change in Moscow. Putin himself suggested that the
killing may have been a set-up designed to put more pressure on the
Kremlin. The World Socialist Web Site summed up the political
implications like this:

“The assassination of Russian opposition politician Boris Nemtsov is a
significant political event that arises out of the US-Russia
confrontation and the intense struggle that is now underway within the
highest levels of the Russian state. The Obama administration and the
CIA are playing a major role in the escalation of this conflict, with
the aim of producing an outcome that serves the global geo-political and
financial interests of US imperialism….

It is all but obvious that the Obama administration is hoping a
faction will emerge within the Russian elite, backed by elements in the
military and secret police, capable of staging a “palace coup” and
getting rid of Putin….

The United States is not seeking to trigger a widespread popular
revolt. (But) are directed entirely at convincing a section of the
oligarchy and emerging capitalist class that their business interests
and personal wealth depend upon US support. That is why the Obama
administration has used economic sanctions targeting individuals as a
means of exerting pressure on the oligarchs as well as broader sections
of the entrepreneurial elite….

It is in the context of this international power struggle
that one must evaluate Nemtsov’s murder. Of course, it is possible that
his death was the outcome of his private dealings. But it is more
likely that he was killed for political reasons. Certainly, the timing
of the killing—on the eve of the opposition’s anti-Putin demonstration
in Moscow—strongly indicates that the killing was a political
assassination, not a private settling of accounts.” (“Murder in Moscow: Why was Boris Nemtsov assassinated?“, David North, World Socialist Web Site)

Just hours after Nemtsov was gunned down in Moscow, the western media
swung into action releasing a barrage of articles suggesting Kremlin
involvement without a shred of evidence to support their claims. The
campaign of innuendo has steadily gained momentum as more Russia
“experts” and politicians offer their opinions about who might be
responsible. Naturally, none of the interviewees veer from the official
storyline that someone in Putin’s charge must have carried out the
attack. An article in the Washington Post is a good example of the
tactics used in the latest PR campaign to discredit Putin. According to
Vladimir Gel’man, Political Scientists European University at St.
Petersburg and the University of Helsinki:

“Boris Nemtsov, one of the leaders of political
opposition, was shot dead nearby the Kremlin. In my opinion, it has all
the hallmarks of a political assassination provoked by an aggressive
Kremlin-induced campaign against the “fifth column of national
traitors”, who opposed the annexation of Crimea, war with the West over
Ukraine, and further decline of political and civil freedoms in the
country. We may never know whether the Kremlin ordered this killing, but
given the fact that Nemtsov was one of the most consistent critics not
only of the Russian regime as such but also of Putin in person, his
dissenting voice will never upset Putin and his inner circle anymore.”
(“What does Boris Nemtsov’s murder mean for Russia?“, Washington Post)

The article in the Washington Post is fairly typical of others
published in the MSM. The coverage is invariably long on finger-pointing
and insinuation and short on facts. Traditional journalistic standards
of objectivity and fact-gathering have been jettisoned to advance a
political agenda that reflects the objectives of ownership. The Nemtsov
assassination is just the latest illustration of the abysmal state of
western media.

The idea that Putin’s agents would “whack” an opposition candidate
just a stone’s throw from the Kremlin is far fetched to say the least.
As one commenter at the Moon of Alabama blog noted:

“Isn’t the image of a dead political opponent lying on a
bridge overlooked by the Kremlin a bit rich? I mean, short of a dagger
lodged between his shoulder blades with the inscription “if found,
please return to Mr Putin”, I can’t think of a more over-egged attempt
at trying to implicate the Government. And on the night before an
opposition rally Nemtsov hoped to lead. I mean, come on.”

While there’s no denying that Moscow could be involved, it seems
unlikely. The more probable explanation is that the incident is part of a
larger regime change scheme to ignite social unrest and destabilize the
government. The US has used these tactics so many times before in
various color-coded revolutions, that we won’t reiterate the details
here. Even so, it’s worth noting that the US has no red lines when it
comes to achieving its strategic goals. It will do whatever it feels is
necessary to prevail in its clash with Putin.

The question is why? Why is Washington so determined to remove Putin?

Putin answered this question himself recently at a celebration of
Russia’s diplomatic workers’ day. He said Russia would pursue an
independent foreign policy despite pressure in what he called “today’s
challenging international environment.”

“No matter how much pressure is put on us, the Russian Federation
will continue to pursue an independent foreign policy, to support the
fundamental interests of our people and in line with global security and
stability.” (Reuters)

This is Putin’s unforgivable crime, the same crime as Venezuela,
Cuba, Iran, Syria and countless other nations that refuse to march in
lockstep to Washington’s directives.

Putin has also resisted NATO encirclement and attempts by the US to
loot Russia’s vast natural resources. And while Putin has made every
effort to avoid a direct confrontation with the US, he has not backed
down on issues that are vital to Russia’s national security, in fact,
he has pointed out numerous times not only the threat that encroaching
NATO poses to Moscow, but also the lies that preceded its eastward
expansion. Here’s Putin at Munich again:

“I would like to quote the speech of NATO General
Secretary Mr. Woerner in Brussels on 17 May 1990. He said at the time
that: “the fact that we are ready not to place a NATO army outside of
German territory gives the Soviet Union a firm security guarantee….
Where are these guarantees?”

Where, indeed. Apparently, they were all lies. As political analyst
Pat Buchanan said in his article “Doesn’t Putin Have a Point?”:

“Though the Red Army had picked up and gone home from
Eastern Europe voluntarily, and Moscow felt it had an understanding we
would not move NATO eastward, we exploited our moment. Not only did we
bring Poland into NATO, we brought in Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia,
and virtually the whole Warsaw Pact, planting NATO right on Mother
Russia’s front porch. Now, there is a scheme afoot to bring in Ukraine
and Georgia in the Caucasus, the birthplace of Stalin….

… though Putin gave us a green light to use bases in the old Soviet
republics for the liberation of Afghanistan, we now seem hell-bent on
making those bases in Central Asia permanent.

… through the National Endowment for Democracy, its GOP and
Democratic auxiliaries, and tax-exempt think tanks, foundations, and
“human rights” institutes such as Freedom House,… we have been fomenting
regime change in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics, and
Russia herself….

These are Putin’s grievances. Does he not have a small point?” “(Doesn’t Putin Have a Point?”, Pat Buchanan, antiwar.com)

Now the US wants to deploy its missile defense system to Eastern
Europe, a system which–according to Putin “will work automatically with
and be an integral part of the US nuclear capability. For the first time
in history, and I want to emphasize this, there are elements of the US
nuclear capability on the European continent. It simply changes the
whole configuration of international security…..Of course, we have to
respond to that.”

How can Putin allow this to happen? How can he allow the US to
situate nuclear weapons in a location that would increase its
first-strike capability and undermine the balance of deterrents allowing
the US to force Russia to follow its orders or face certain
annihilation. Putin has no choice but to resist this outcome, just as
has no choice but to oppose the principle upon which US expansion is
based, the notion that the Cold War was won by the US, therefore the US
has the right to reshape the world in a way that best suits its own
economic and geopolitical interests. Here’s Putin again:

“What is a unipolar world? However one might embellish
this term, it refers to a type of situation where there is one center
of authority, one center of force, one center of decision-making. It
is world in which there is one master, one sovereign. At the end of the
day, this is pernicious not only for all those within this system, but
also for the sovereign itself because it destroys itself from within…..

I consider that the unipolar model is not only unacceptable but also
impossible in today’s world…. the model itself is flawed because at its
basis there is and can be no moral foundations for modern
civilization….” (Munich, 2007)

What sort of man talks like this? What sort of man talks about “the
moral foundations for modern civilization” or invokes FDR in his
address?

Putin: “‘Security for one is security for all’. As Franklin D.
Roosevelt said during the first few days that the Second World War was
breaking out: ‘When peace has been broken anywhere, the peace of all
countries everywhere is in danger.’ These words remain topical today.”

I urge everyone to watch at least the first 10 minutes of Putin’s
speech and decide for themselves whether they think the characterization
(and demonization) of Putin in the media is fair or not. And pay
special attention to Minute 6 where Putin says this:

“We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the
basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are,
as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal
system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States,
has overstepped its national borders in every way. This is visible in
the economic, political, cultural and educational policies it imposes on
other nations. Well, who likes this? Who is happy about this?” (“Vladimir Putin’s legendary speech at Munich Security Conference“)

While Putin is making this statement, the camera pans to John McCain
and Joe Lieberman who are sitting stone-faced in the front row seething
at every word uttered by the Russian president. If you look close
enough, you can see the steam emerging from McCain’s ears.

This is why Washington wants regime change in Moscow. It’s because
Putin refuses to be pushed around by the United States. It’s because he
wants a world that is governed by international laws that are
impartially administered by the United Nations. It’s because he rejects a
“unipolar” world order where one nation dictates policy to everyone
else and where military confrontation becomes the preferred way for the
powerful to impose their will on the weak.

Putin: “Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of
force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent
conflicts…The United States, has overstepped its national borders in
every way….And of course this is extremely dangerous. It results in the
fact that no one feels safe. I want to emphasize this — no one feels
safe.” Vladimir Putin, Munich 2007

Putin isn’t a perfect man. He has his shortcomings and flaws like
everyone else. But he appears to be a decent person who has made great
strides in restoring Russia’s economy after it was looted by agents of
the US following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He has lifted
living standards, increased pensions, reduced poverty, and improved
education and health care which is why his public approval ratings are
currently hovering at an eye-watering 86 percent. Even so, Putin is
most admired for standing up to the United States and blocking its
strategy to pivot to Asia. The proxy war in Ukraine is actually a
struggle to thwart Washington’s plan to break up the Russian Federation,
encircle China, control the flow of resources from Asia to Europe, and
rule the world. Vladimir Putin is at the forefront of that
conflagration which is why he has gained the respect and admiration of
people around the world.

As for “democracy”, Putin said it best himself:

“Am I a ‘pure democrat’? (laughs) Of course I am.
Absolutely. The problem is that I’m all alone, the only one of my kind
in the whole world. Just look at what’s happening in America, it’s
terrible—torture, homeless people, Guantanamo, people detained without
trial or investigation. And look at Europe—harsh treatment of
demonstrators, rubber bullets and tear gas used in one capital after
another, demonstrators killed on the streets….. I have no one to talk to
since Gandhi died.”